It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all). We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

A few weeks ago we asked you to fill out a survey about some of the possible new areas of gaming that GOG.com might move into in the future. We also promised that we’d share the results with you, and they are below. Before we get to that, though, we did want to let you know what these mean to us:

1. We remain committed to bringing you guys the best games from all of gaming history, on both PC and Mac. This means that while we’re exploring ways to bring you new games, we also are committed to bringing classics back to life as well. This year alone has seen Omikron, System Shock 2, the Leisure Suit Larry series, Strike Commander, and even Daikatana!

2. DLC is a controversial issue, but something that has been in gaming—by another name—since the very early days. You guys seem to understand that it’s not possible for us to sign new games with all of their DLC (before it is even made) bundled in, and it looks like you’re willing to either buy DLC or not as you find it interesting. As part of our continual efforts to improve the user experience on GOG.com, we will be looking at new, better ways to present DLC in our catalog as well.

3. Selling episodic content before the “season” is finished is also something we’re looking forward to bringing you in the future, and you seem to agree.

4. Season passes—for both DLC and for episodic content—clearly have a mixed perception here. Season passes—if we do offer them—are something that we’ll approach with deliberation to make sure that we’re confident that the content that is promised will all be delivered.

5. Finally, we have somewhat conflicting information on the persistent multiplayer features; when discussed in a very abstract fashion (as it was in the first survey), it’s a very clear “no.” When mentioned in a specific game that we’ve shown you, it’s an equally clear “yes.” What we’re going to be sure of, going forward, is that we’re very careful that any game that we bring you guys with persistent multiplayer features will be at least as offline-friendly as Planetary Annihilation is.

One of the defining characteristics of GOG.com is that the games that we sell have no DRM; this isn't going to change, and we will continue to evaluate the games that we bring to you to make sure that they're not only great games, but great games that we think will fit in well with how we do business.

SPTX: My stance is that good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be.

And how is that different from games themselves, or even game subsets? People have been complaining that shooters have been dumbed down, that RPGs no longer have that epic story, that adventures are now just QTE movie experiences. Does that mean that shooters/rpgs/adventures/games being good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be?

SPTX: You are also implying that post production stuff is indeed post prod and not cut-out content.

I am saying (not implying) that not all post production stuff is cut-out content. You are saying that all post prod is cut-out content. Do you see the difference in this?

SPTX: My position is simple, opening the floodgate will lead to abuses. You can call me tinfoil hat all you want, but this is what will happen if DLC becomes allowed with no proper standards set.

Let me make you a bet, right here, in public. If in the next year GOG releases a DLC that noone (not a single person) finds as worthwhile, you can ask me to buy you any game on GOG, along with any DLCs it has. But if there is even one person that buys that DLC, you cannot ask me for the game. And no, I won't ask for something in return if I do win the bet.

SPTX: Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.

And now the icing of the cake. Do you really mean the bolded part? Do you really think that I'm an imbecile that cannot judge for myself if an action is worth it or not?

And you accuse me of acting like a dodgy politician. But then you propose censorship, content filtering, constant supervision. What's next, outlawing me to drive a car, because I can hurt myself in one? Not allowing me to handle knives because I can hurt others?

JMich: And you accuse me of acting like a dodgy politician. But then you propose censorship, content filtering, constant supervision. What's next, outlawing me to drive a car, because I can hurt myself in one? Not allowing me to handle knives because I can hurt others?

SPTX: Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.

JMich: And now the icing of the cake. Do you really mean the bolded part? Do you really think that I'm an imbecile that cannot judge for myself if an action is worth it or not?

And you accuse me of acting like a dodgy politician. But then you propose censorship, content filtering, constant supervision. What's next, outlawing me to drive a car, because I can hurt myself in one? Not allowing me to handle knives because I can hurt others?

This reminds me of those guys who want to "protect me" from smoking by rising taxes on tobacco. End result is: I still smoke, but shittier (cheaper) cigs. Nobody wins. (well, maybe the tax office wins, because I still pay taxes for my dodgy cigs)

Novotnus: ... This reminds me of those guys who want to "protect me" from smoking by rising taxes on tobacco. End result is: I still smoke, but shittier (cheaper) cigs. Nobody wins. (well, maybe the tax office wins, because I still pay taxes for my dodgy cigs)

Just a side comment: Would you see it as a win if somebody could effectively protect you from smoking?

I don't smoke because I don't like the taste of cigarettes and mostly because I know it's not healthy. But of course others can do with their body what they want.

Trilarion: Just a side comment: Would you see it as a win if somebody could effectively protect you from smoking?

I don't smoke because I don't like the taste of cigarettes and mostly because I know it's not healthy. But of course others can do with their body what they want.

If I could choose to do something that makes me want to stop smoking - that would be a win. If someone would be able to force me not to smoke, or force me to undertake aftermentioned treatment, that would be a catastrophe. When I was born, this country was called People's Republic of Poland and many different care-bears tried to protect me from many different things. That certainly wasn't fun.

JMich: And how is that different from games themselves, or even game subsets? People have been complaining that shooters have been dumbed down, that RPGs no longer have that epic story, that adventures are now just QTE movie experiences. Does that mean that shooters/rpgs/adventures/games being good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be?

Well to some extent, yes, it definitely is the same situation.

JMich: I am saying (not implying) that not all post production stuff is cut-out content. You are saying that all post prod is cut-out content. Do you see the difference in this?

There is no difference, only anti-generalisation versus generalisation, the problem being that cut-content as DLC tends to be more on the generalized side. Giving money to charity after beating someone to death doesn't make you a saint. Behind this shitty analogy you should understand that good DLC in the market doesn't absolves the crimes of shitty DLC. The problem being the customer that is way too easy to milk, hence my position on the subject here. I was hoping people to be different here, but it just seems we are bound to cross the same drones everywhere.

JMich: Let me make you a bet, right here, in public. If in the next year GOG releases a DLC that noone (not a single person) finds as worthwhile...

And call of duty is the best FPS ever, we got it, sales = quality.

JMich: And now the icing of the cake. Do you really mean the bolded part? Do you really think that I'm an imbecile that cannot judge for myself if an action is worth it or not?

Reading you, yes, I do.

JMich: And you accuse me of acting like a dodgy politician. But then you propose censorship, content filtering, constant supervision. What's next, outlawing me to drive a car, because I can hurt myself in one? Not allowing me to handle knives because I can hurt others?

At least I am straightforward. on a side note, censorship isn't inherently evil.

JMich: What's next, outlawing me to drive a car, because I can hurt myself in one? Not allowing me to handle knives because I can hurt others?

SPTX: Giving money to charity after beating someone to death doesn't make you a saint. Behind this shitty analogy you should understand that good DLC in the market doesn't absolves the crimes of shitty DLC.

You're right. That is a shitty analogy.

What you're saying is more akin to: the guy who beats the shit out of people and the person who donates to charity are the same because they're both people.

Seriously, guy, the debate's over, the shine's apparently off the apple now and forever so why don't you take your obvious inability to ignore the things you don't like and move on?

Well, I've seen people trying to protect other people from cartoon characters they don't like, so... At least here we've got some actual points, for now. But on the other hand, the aforementioned people argued about something that already existed in a definite form and weren't practicing clairvoyance based on their personal view of the situation. Oh, the wonders of the Internet...

SPTX: There is no difference, only anti-generalisation versus generalisation, the problem being that cut-content as DLC tends to be more on the generalized side. Giving money to charity after beating someone to death doesn't make you a saint. Behind this shitty analogy you should understand that good DLC in the market doesn't absolves the crimes of shitty DLC. The problem being the customer that is way too easy to milk, hence my position on the subject here. I was hoping people to be different here, but it just seems we are bound to cross the same drones everywhere.

Here is the difference though. You think people need saving from themselves. I think people are able to decide for themselves. You say that because 90% of DLCs (or games, or cars, or houses) are crap, we shouldn't be selling any of those. I say that because 10% are not crap, we should be selling them, and trust the people to distinguish between worthy products and not.

JMich: Let me make you a bet, right here, in public. If in the next year GOG releases a DLC that noone (not a single person) finds as worthwhile...

SPTX: And call of duty is the best FPS ever, we got it, sales = quality.

Love the conclusion you reach from my point. I never said that more sales means a product is better (though better compared to what? A product that sells less?). And you could already say that this isn't true, with culinary references. And you didn't tell me if you accept my bet or not.

SPTX: Sorry, I don't have the ability to re-educate you entirely.

On the other hand, it seems I do. At least seeing that this time you replied to the whole post, and tried to present counter-arguments. Even if that is the only result of this discussion, I am glad.

SPTX: At least I am straightforward.

Ah, and here you are implying that I'm not straightforward. Thank you.

SPTX: on a side note, censorship isn't inherently evil.

True, I do support DA-Notices after all. Other than this case, when else is censhorship justified?

SPTX: Reading you, yes, I do.

Clarification request. Do you mean "Yes, I do mean the bolded part" or "Yes, I do think you're an imbecile"? I don't want to jump to conclusions.

P.S. Having ~20 hours to reply did allow you to present a case, even if I still find it weak. Since I will be offline for the rest of the day, feel free to reply at your leisure, no time pressure.

It is new here on GOG. You're not willing to trust their ability to handle this well, while other people are willing to let them try.

From what I can understand, you've had some bad experience with buying DLC packs in the past. But in this case, your position is somewhat akin to that of a person who barely survived a car wreck and is now advocating everyone to stop using cars for their own safety and/or ban cars altogether. Just think about how well this would've worked in real life. Even with the horrible injuries as proof that cars are dangerous.

JMich: trust the people to distinguish between worthy products and not.

if the people were trustworthy, we wouldn't be in an arguable situation to begin with.

JMich: Love the conclusion you reach from my point. I never said that more sales means a product is better (though better compared to what? A product that sells less?). And you could already say that this isn't true, with culinary references. And you didn't tell me if you accept my bet or not.

Your bet is that every DLC has to have at least SOMEONE interested. I am on the losing side by definition. See above.

JMich: Ah, and here you are implying that I'm not straightforward. Thank you.

Well, I accused you of talking like a dodgy politic. You are indeed not straightforward, constantly trying to twist words to make your detractor do a mistake rather than trying to find a proper counter argument.

JMich: Other than this case, when else is censhorship justified?

dude...

JMich: Clarification request. Do you mean "Yes, I do mean the bolded part" or "Yes, I do think you're an imbecile"? I don't want to jump to conclusions.

I do mean that you are an imbecile (and the bold statement too, by extension)

PS : check the dates.

YnK: From what I can understand, you've had some bad experience with buying DLC packs in the past. But in this case, your position is somewhat akin to that of a person who barely survived a car wreck and is now advocating everyone to stop using cars for their own safety and/or ban cars altogether. Just think about how well this would've worked in real life.

Nothing I can remember. It probably did happen though. However I am lucky to be smart enough, so I have no "traumatizing" experience, as you are implying. Sorry to dismantle your "argument" so easily.

SPTX: Nothing I can remember. It probably did happen though. However I am lucky to be smart enough, so I have no "traumatizing" experience, as you are implying. Sorry to dismantle your "argument" so easily.

Okay, I guessed wrong. No hard feelings. But if you're smart enough, you'd realize that, by this logic, people should avoid all activities that can potentially result in traumatizing experience so they never ever get it... which basically means they should avoid everything ever. Traumatizing experiences are a natural part of life, unfortunately, but what's been pointed out to you numerous times is that every person should decide for himself - if GOG releases downloadable content, you'll still have a choice of not buying it, so why are you so offended? And calling people "imbeciles" for having a different opinion really doesn't make you look smart enough.

(On a side note, it's amazing how much mess can happen when the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is actually applicable to the situation in more than one direction...)